DigitalDoors v. Goldwater Bank: Four-Patent Infringement Suit Dismissed in 42 Days
DigitalDoors Incorporated filed a four-patent infringement action against Arizona-based Goldwater Bank NA in the District of Arizona, asserting patents covering secure digital information infrastructure and granular data store management. The case closed after just 42 days when DigitalDoors voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each side bearing its own costs.
Short-Lived Banking-Sector Patent Action Ends on Plaintiff’s Own Motion
DigitalDoors Incorporated filed suit against Goldwater Bank NA on 24 October 2025 in the Arizona District Court before Judge Susan M. Brnovich, asserting infringement of four US patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — covering digital information infrastructure, secure data stores, content analysis and classification, and configurable data filtering systems. The action was classified as an infringement case with no publicly identified defendant counsel on record.
The case closed on 5 December 2025, just 42 days after filing, when DigitalDoors invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to voluntarily dismiss the entire action with prejudice. The dismissal was self-executing — it required no court order. Critically, the with-prejudice designation means DigitalDoors permanently relinquished the right to re-assert these four patents against Goldwater Bank NA on the same claims, barring any appeal.
A dismissal with prejudice within six weeks of filing, before any defendant response was docketed, is commercially unusual and typically suggests rapid settlement, licensing resolution, or a strategic recalibration by the plaintiff. The public record does not disclose the specific driver. No financial terms, licensing agreements, or technical findings were adjudicated or published, leaving the underlying competitive and commercial motivations opaque.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 42 days
42 days — well below the median district court patent case lifespan of 2–3 years
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. DigitalDoors exercised this right here. The addition of ‘with prejudice’ — which goes beyond the rule’s default — converts what would otherwise be a dismissal without prejudice into a permanent bar against refiling the same claims against Goldwater Bank.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingDigitalDoors permanently surrenders claims against Goldwater Bank
By electing with-prejudice terms, DigitalDoors foreclosed any future action against Goldwater Bank on these four patents for the same accused conduct. This is a stronger concession than a standard voluntary dismissal, which would preserve the option to refile. The public record does not indicate whether a private settlement, licensing arrangement, or other consideration was exchanged — but the with-prejudice election suggests the dispute is fully resolved between these parties.
Claims permanently extinguishedGoldwater Bank walks away without filing a single defence document
Goldwater Bank NA achieved a complete resolution before it was required to serve an answer, engage counsel of record, or mount any substantive defence. The with-prejudice dismissal provides lasting protection: DigitalDoors cannot re-sue Goldwater on the same patents for the same conduct. Each side bearing its own costs means Goldwater absorbed its own legal spend but was not exposed to any adverse fee award, consistent with a clean exit.
Full protection, no merits exposureUnresolved patent scope leaves third-party banks exposed to similar claims
Because no claim construction, invalidity ruling, or infringement finding was reached, the legal scope and enforceability of DigitalDoors’ four patents remain untested in court. Other financial institutions deploying digital infrastructure, granular data stores, or content-classification systems should treat these patents as active enforcement risk. The swift resolution against Goldwater Bank does not create estoppel or precedent that third parties can rely on.
Patents remain untested — third-party risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DigitalDoors Incorporated | Individual | Digital infrastructure IP licensor — holder of US10250639B2 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Goldwater Bank NA | Company | Goldwater Bank NA — Arizona-chartered national bank and financial services providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Lawrence Bycer | Attorney | Counsel for DigitalDoors IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Benjamin Marion | Attorney | Counsel for DigitalDoors IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bycer & Marion PLC – Phoenix, AZ | Law Firm | Representing DigitalDoors IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Susan M Brnovich | Judge | Arizona District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and specifies with-prejudice terms — an express, self-executing election by plaintiff that goes beyond the rule’s default. No court order was required, and none was entered. The phrasing ‘in its entirety’ confirms all four asserted patents and all accused products are captured. The mutual cost-bearing provision is standard in privately negotiated exits but carries no judicial finding on the merits, validity, or infringement of any asserted claim.
US10250639B2 — Secure Digital Infrastructure and Granular Data Store Systems
US10250639B2 (App. No. 14/597,345) is the lead patent in a four-patent portfolio covering the architecture and methods for securing designated data within digital information infrastructure using granular data store segmentation. The accompanying patents — US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — extend coverage to data flow distribution controls, content extraction and classification pipelines, and configurable filter-based segmental storage. The application lineage across four separate application numbers (including the earlier US11/746440) suggests a sustained continuation prosecution strategy spanning multiple innovation generations.
For financial institutions, the claims are commercially significant because they appear to map to core banking data architecture: segmented customer data vaults, document classification engines, and access-controlled distribution systems are standard components in modern digital banking platforms. The portfolio’s breadth — spanning infrastructure management, content analysis, and storage controls — means it could be asserted against a wide range of vendors and operators in the financial technology ecosystem, not solely deposit-taking institutions. The absence of any validity challenge in this case means the portfolio’s enforceability has never been stress-tested in litigation.
Should your organisation run an FTO against US10250639B2 and its related patents?
Any enterprise or financial institution operating systems that segment, classify, or apply access controls to digital data stores should treat this four-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The products described in the asserted claims — granular data stores, content analysis and classification engines, configurable segmental filters — are widely deployed in banking platforms, RegTech pipelines, document management systems, and cloud data infrastructure. The fact that no court has construed these claims means their scope is still being defined by the patent owner.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each claim of US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flag continuation applications that may extend this family further. With no invalidity finding on record, a proactive clearance analysis is the only reliable way to quantify and manage exposure before this portfolio is asserted against your organisation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10250639B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Digital Infrastructure Patent Cases in US District Courts
Cases involving digital data infrastructure and secure storage patents asserted against financial institutions in US district courts, with comparable voluntary dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the financial-sector digital infrastructure IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit before any defence filing typically signals a deal — or a reassessment. Either way, the four patents remain live.
With-prejudice dismissals this early often mask private licensing outcomes
When a plaintiff voluntarily exits with prejudice in under 45 days — before the defendant even files an answer — it is consistent with a pre-litigation licensing conversation reaching a conclusion. DigitalDoors retains enforcement rights against all third parties; the resolution binds only Goldwater Bank. Financial institutions in the same technology space should monitor DigitalDoors’ assertion activity closely.
Four asserted patents covering data infrastructure remain unchallenged and enforceable
No IPR petition, no invalidity challenge, and no claim construction were recorded in this docket. US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 all emerge from this case with their presumption of validity intact. Any organisation operating secure digital data stores or granular content-classification pipelines in the financial sector should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio.
Incorporated v Goldwater — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars DigitalDoors from re-asserting these four patents against Goldwater Bank NA on the same accused conduct. It does not affect DigitalDoors’ right to assert the same patents against any other defendant, and no finding of invalidity, non-infringement, or unenforceability was made.
DigitalDoors asserted four patents: US10250639B2 (digital infrastructure and granular data stores), US10182073B2 (data processing with distribution controls), US9734169B2 (extractor, secure storage, and content classification), and US9015301B2 (variable filters and segmental data stores). All four application numbers trace to separate prosecution files.
The public record does not disclose the specific reason. A with-prejudice dismissal before the defendant filed any answer is consistent with a private settlement or licensing resolution, or a strategic decision by the plaintiff to discontinue litigation. No financial terms or licensing agreements were disclosed in the docket.
No. Because the dismissal was procedural and occurred before any substantive defence was filed, no claim construction, invalidity ruling, or IPR proceeding was initiated. All four patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — retain their statutory presumption of validity and remain enforceable against third parties.
The dismissal notice specifies ‘each side to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.’ This is a standard provision in agreed-upon dismissals and means neither party sought or obtained fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) or Rule 54. It does not constitute a finding on the merits and is consistent with both a negotiated exit and a unilateral plaintiff decision to withdraw.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.